Lutheran Satire

This was posted on Jim West's blog. It's a great little clip! 

http://youtu.be/4r2m_cffRjI

The BAS and the "Left Behind" Movie

Doctoral student from King's College, London, Michelle Fletcher, wrote this quick article about the movie, and its theology. As a warning, this will not be agreeable to some of my readers, assuming I have any, that are in the Pentecostal tradition. It's very different from our eschatology. However, as a reminder, we have so many opinions about eschatology that a scholarly perspective would be refreshing to see.

"

Blending into One: The Left Behind Movie, the Book of Revelation and the Rapture

Michelle Fletcher   •  10/14/2014

The new Left Behind movie (2014) depicts the Rapture, which is often assumed to be clearly explained in the Bible, especially the book of Revelation. It’s more complicated than that, says author Michelle Fletcher.

It’s a day like any other, and then—bam!—everything changes. Millions of people disappear in an instant and all that’s left are piles of clothes, iPods and wallets. Panic and terror break out. This is the scene that viewers are faced with in the new Left Behind movie, directed by Vic Armstrong, and it’s Nicolas Cage’s job to find out what’s happened. But the viewers already know the answer: it’s the Rapture, of course! The Biblical prophecies have come true.

Or have they?

The Rapture is now commonly understood to refer to a time when believers will be snatched up to heaven by Jesus to escape the time of tribulation about to engulf the earth during the reign of the Antichrist. This chain of events has become so integral to some Christian eschatologies (end-time theories) that it’s often assumed they’re clearly explained in the Bible, especially the book of Revelation. But in fact it’s all slightly more complicated than that."

Read the rest...

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/the-left-behind-movie-the-book-of-revelation-and-the-rapture/?mqsc=E3780791&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHD+Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=E4BO16

Just For Fun!

This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it's great anyway! Enjoy it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC4OqdZElX8

The Sacred Page's Response to Loosening Standards on Marriage. A GOOD READ!

In response to the Catholic church's synod's leanings, "The Sacred Page" hits the nail on the head! 

Would the Real Pharisees Please Step Forward? The Debates on Marriage

"I posted on this issue already, and took the post down because it was not stated with enough precision.  But upon further consideration, I believe my essential contribution was correct, and wish to restate it more accurately.

In the context of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, there has been an attempt by some to characterize the position of those who support current Church teaching and practice on divorce and remarriage as “Pharisaical,” while associating those who wish to accommodate some form of ecclesiastical blessing of second marriages within the Church with the evangelical mercy and love of Jesus.

This is extremely ironic, because in point of fact, it was the Pharisees who were very open to divorce and remarriage, but Jesus who opposed it. 

Let’s review the relevant texts:

Matt. 19:1   Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; 2 and large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

Matt. 19:3   And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”  4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?  6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”  7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”  8 He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.  9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity (Gk porneia), and marries another, commits adultery.”

Let’s discuss the background for this text.   First of all, divorce and remarriage were legally and morally permissible in Pharisaic Judaism.  There were differences among different schools of Pharisees concerning what were considered valid grounds for divorce, however.  The school of Shammai held that one could only divorce his wife for a serious offense, whereas the school of Hillel held that one could divorce for virtually any reason.  This is why the Pharisees come to Jesus and pose the question.  It was a debate within their own school of thought, and they wanted to know what the impressive young rabbi from Nazareth taught on the subject. 

..."

Read the whole thing:

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2014/10/would-real-pharisees-please-step.html

Reflection on Modern Crucifixions

Here's a theological reflection on how to treat others as we ought. The blogger is an interesting one; though I find him disagreeable on other social issues, I agree with him here.

http://criticalrealismandthenewtestament.blogspot.ca/2014/10/recrucifying-jesus.html

AMEN! #KARMA #BAH

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/karma/

The Jewish Jesus and American Christianity

Presently, I'm translating the Fourth Gospel, John. In here, I'm often surprised to see references to "the Jews", or, at times, the ambiguous term "Judeans". As a post WWII student, I find this unsettling. However, as I make progress throughout the gospel, I see the usages in a nuanced fashion; this is evident in chapter 11. Regardless of how I feel, however, I still need to understand the gospel within its contemporary setting. For me to impose my modern ideals is to do violence to the text, and I refuse to do that! On one hand, if the text has friction with the first century Jews, then there's nothing I can do about it, and will have to read and understand the text as how it stands. That, however, does not justify any actions taken against Jews-that would be an abuse of a text as well. Yet, on the other hand, there is another danger we face being modern Christians, in particular having fundamentalist tendencies. I've heard many people discuss "legalism", and reference "the Law" with disdain. This, of course, is with the stereotyping of Jews, both from this time, and of the past. (Oddly enough, the Jews seem to have more freedom in things, e.g., drinking, clothing, etc.) Frequently, I hear of "Judaizers" in discussion of Pauline literature, and it's always in a negative context. This, too, is anachronistic, but on the other end of the spectrum. Since the reformation (though the inquisition made use of racism too), Christianity has had a tendency to downplay Jesus' Jewishness, and  emphasize Jesus in a non-historical light. In my biblical studies courses, I'm surrounded and taught by wonderful Baptists, but I find myself in disagreement with them in their approach to the scriptures-this is not because I'm a Pentecostal (sorry about that, guys-it's just far more than that). I see that their reformed traditions have them interpret the Bible with bias, and that bias has to be seen for what it is. As part of a separate discussion, but since I enjoy irony, these fellow students, and professors also have a tendency to be Zionist, an odd contradiction.
Now, I am not alluding to, or suggesting that the reformation tradition is antisemitic, in particular toward first century Jews. These are tendencies that have been strong due to readings of certain traditions, Luther in particular (I was just reminded this morning how Luther was just vile at times towards others, e.g., Zwingli, along with Jews). Though I think Luther is one of the best theologians, I find myself not caring for his theology.  What I am saying is that we must be cautious of how we interpret the scriptures. We can look through our perceptions, and see what we've been told to see, and not anything else. This post is to show that we can take two different approaches to the scriptures and be nowhere near the truth. I have to be cautious as to anachronistically being apologetic in my reading, because of WWII, and others have to be cautious in reading through antisemitism. As another side note, I am not a Zionist. Hence, showing another paradox.

Here's the post that got me on my little, but sturdy (because of my weight) soapbox.
http://historicalchaos.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/rudolf-rocker-on-houston-stewart-chamberlain-and-fascist-scholarship/

Racial Profiling and Philosophy Talk

Those who know me know that I enjoy National Public Radio. So, I'm recommending one of my favorite shows, Philosophy Talk, today's program in particular. This is especially important because it deals with racial profiling, and, well, I'm a minority. Hence, here's the link. Now, this won't show tonight, but it'll be on tomorrow.
http://www.philosophytalk.org/

Quote of the day

"Christianity didn't begin as a new religious experience; it began with the claim that something had happened, something that had changed the world...something that had happened to Jesus." 

-N.T. Wright 

Sleeping In Church

Now, I'll confess, there are times that some sermons are a bit dull, and even I have fallen asleep, at times (those were times of working early morning shifts), but if you're tired, then do your best to get rest at some other point of the weekend. Now, if you don't, make sure I'm not around with my phone.

I believe that Sunday morning services are to be refreshing, but in a different sort of way.

-Steven